|
|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
 |
Nice retractable tail wheel there Grommit.
_______________________________________ Dum spiro, spero. |
|||
|
 |
...And Fowler flaps and Handley-Page slats and four cannon and a little box to collect spent cartridges...and projected interchangeable weapon modules for the nose...years ahead of its' time you know...
  |
|||
|
Sounds like a lack of engineering too me  So what our saying was, the split was because the canopy warped as it was retracted? Honestly, thats rather... Stupid. I expected better from Kurt Tank. Also, notice that the Go-229's canopy is split down the middle, and thats NOT due to the track. |
||||
|
I just wish they developed a 1 peace bubble for the P-38. =~( They tried, but like the P-38K, the war department thought the production was too important to stop.
|
||||
|
No Gibbage it was because the fuselage tapered.
 Also if you looked a just wee bit closer you would see that the rear portion of the canopy where the antenna exists had no join line. So with all your knocking of Germany's inability to form large one piece canopies, they did so on the 190.  As well if you really knew what you were talking about, you would know the Brits and Americans had lots of rejects when forming their 1 pc canopies. With the above, you should be able to see that the German canopies was good engineering and good logistics (only one part of the canopy had to be replaced if damaged). Now hard large are the nose pieces on the Ar234?  The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge, always. swept wings on the Me262 to correct CG problem A Sealion success is a delusional fantasy |
||||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
|
|||
|
That reminds me. The Apex of late-war fighter's didnt even have a 1 peace canopy? Me-262? Also, there are more places to put a radio wire then through the canopy, and all the other fighters that HAD bubble canopy's prove that.
Ya. The Ar-234 had a sizable peace of plastic, but its to bad it really didnt need one. What REALLY needed them was fighters, since its a lot more critical for them. Oddly, none got them.... |
||||
|
Grasping at straws Gibbage, you are.
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge, always. swept wings on the Me262 to correct CG problem A Sealion success is a delusional fantasy |
||||
|
 |
I was going to ask about the helmet bars. I would imagine they would really get in the way of looking around effectively. Intel QX6700 Quad Core @3.22 EVGA nForce 680i SLI MoBo / 2 Gigs RAM 2x 8800 GTX SLI / SB X-Fi CH Controls with Franken Potato |
|||
|
 |
Well, maybe the US id not leak the B-29 specs. Maybe the Germans had spies that were, well, good.
I don't think the US wanted Germany to employ so many resources in attempting to intercept their B-29s, when they didn't know yet if they'd have to use B-29s over Germany in the end. Had the war in Europe gone bad after the Bulge, Hisroshima's nuke sure was intended to be on Berlin or Hamburg. And then, Germany having a fleet of anti-B-29 fighters wasn't a good thing after all.  |
|||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
Very true, DuxCorvan. Plus if you are intending to counter the B-29 why design the BV-155 which was intended to have a ceiling of 50,000+ ft if the target has a ceiling of 34,000 ft (same for B-17 and B-29)?
If the BV-155 was in response to anything than the Vickers Victory specification would make more sense (projected ceiling 50,000 ft)! If, however, you knew that you could get your own recon bombers to 45,000 ft you might want to start development of something effective at that altitude or above just in case your enemies were doing the same. So the BV-155 and other high alitude projects were going to get some development time with or without supposed leaks of B-29 specs, just as (as an example) the British issued specifications for fighters with ceilings of around 40,000 feet two or more years prior to the Ju-86P putting in an appearance. You always have developments in hand against potential threats, especially ones that could counter the sort of things you yourself are developing as you assume that an enemy with equal industrial power is capable of thinking along the same lines! As I noted before the BV-155 was far too ambitious, and the existing Luftwaffe fighters were having problems engaging US bombers at high altitude, and the Ta-152 is an engineering solution to that problem - enhance and modify an existing design. The USA certainly did it, e.g. making the longer range P-47N, or the twin fuselage P-82 for the Far East. |
|||
|
His mouth hung open in childish fascination, his eyes round as little blue marbles, as he stared at the screen.
"You do y'all know so much?" ------------------------------------------ "Ah yes, Michael," Bader replied, "But these particular Fockers were Messerschmitts..." |
||||
|
Except that at that point in the war, NOTHING was going to stop the russians, and since THEY were the army that took Germany, the only difference would have been how far west the Russians got before Germany was gone. |
||||
|
|
|
The Japanese were aware of the capabilities of the B-29 before one ever flew over Japan. I believe this is in ZERO! by Jiro Horikoshi (designer of the A6M) and Martin Caiden. The British flew B-17 missions over Germany in 1941 in the export version of the B-17C. The British discovered the difficulties of flying high altitude bomber missions and the Germans discovered the difficulty of repelling them.
 |
|||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
Leitmotiv - the B-29 and B-17 have the same service ceiling, but could the B-29 have been a more effective bomber, given the pressurisation, etc. at 30,000 feet than the B-17? If the Germans simply had the details of the service ceilings of the B-17 and B-29 there would be no particular reason to panic any more than in the late 1930s given the service ceiling figures unless there was a feeling that it would be more effective at that altitude. Germany had its own bomber research programme for 30,000 ft altitude and above so would have been well aware of the issues around operating aircraft at that altitude (with essentially the same solutions envisaged as for the B-29).
In reality the USA, UK, and Germany all had high altitude research programmes and specifications for high altitude bombers and fighters from the late 1930s. In the late 1930s high altitude was considered to be the 30,000-35,000 ft range. By 1941 it was, for all nations, considered to be in the 40,000-50,000 ft range. In the end it was the Germans who actually deployed aircraft at this altitude in this period, if only really as a nuisance or for recon. Given that the research programmes existed already I don't really buy the idea that the B-29 was the reason why the Ta-152 and BV-155 were developed. The only thing that would make sense is if the information about the B-29 released was deliberately inaccurate - e.g. that it would be flying at 45,000 ft, which would make sense in conjunction with the planned service ceiling of the BV-155 of 50,000 ft. But then the amount of effort expended on a high altitude research programme would not be that crippling, and would lead to too many useful developments for it to make sense to try and cripple the German war effort by working on it. If you can develop systems for working at 50,000 ft you'd end up with potentially engines and systems that would boost performance at the sort of altitude that B-17s and B-24s actually operated at, which would mean the USA would have been shooting itself in the foot. |
|||
|
The B-29's pressurization was to be 'turn off' when in combat. In other words, for crew comfort it was 'on' til enemy a/c showed up. It was turned back 'on' when the enemy a/c left.
Why did the B-29 have so many small plexi panels in the cockpit area? The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the best of my knowledge, always. swept wings on the Me262 to correct CG problem A Sealion success is a delusional fantasy |
||||
|
|
IL2 Moderator |
My guess about the panels was to make it easier to pressurise. If you look at some of the other high altitude test planes in WW2 they either have a small domed perspex vision area for the pilot (e.g. various Vickers aircraft, and very similar to that of the Canberra, and also pretty much the same as the vision domes for the gunners of the B-29) or lots of small windows. Creating a large pressurised blown hood with decent vision wasn't an option then - the small domes tended to be quite thick as it was and a big hood would need to be even stronger and obstruct vision with refraction artefacts even more *. The allies had issues with blown teardrop canopies deforming when moved backwards and forwards on the rails and this causing problems with emergency exits (or even just on the ground sometimes). This (plus it being hard to pull them back against airflow anyway) being the reason why they were equipped with quick release mechanisms after this issue emerged.
* By which that total refraction is higher in a thicker moulding, which means that there is more chance of having imperfections causing distortions. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Aaron_GT, |
|||
|
 |
Chew on this late 1930's design Gib.     TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins "Never have I seen so beautiful an airplane. A rich, dappled blue, from a dark, threatening thunderstorm to a light sky blue. The cowling is a brilliant, gleaming yellow. Beautiful, and Death on the wing. A Focke-Wulf 190." -Robert Johnson- |
|||
|
 |
Whow, excellent pic Jaws
 .
|
|||
|
 |
Romanian aircraft don't count.
 The Romanian's are well known for two things,making round plexiglass shapes and beer hopps boilers. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve1da011 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "IL-2 - Maddox Games" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
